Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BREAKING: The Commerce secretary threatened to fire NOAA officials in a fight over President Trump's incorrect warnings about Alabama and Hurricane Dorian.
So remember how all the Trump supporters were crowing that NOAA was backing Trump? Yeah... about that...
This is a bit much. Some of Trump's messing around is just plain sad, like the Inauguration crowd size. No doubt there are other situations - important ones that the public cannot be made aware of because they involve national security etc. This, though - is a hurricane. Important but at the same time the data - like that doctored, confused map - is available for anyone who chooses to take a look at it.
Then to add on threatened firings on top of that if scientists don't back Trump? Per the NYT:
"Mr. Ross, the commerce secretary, intervened two days later, early last Friday, according to the three people familiar with his actions. Mr. Ross phoned Neil Jacobs, the acting administrator of NOAA, from Greece where the secretary was traveling for meetings and instructed Dr. Jacobs to fix the agency’s perceived contradiction of the president.
Dr. Jacobs objected to the demand and was told that the political staff at NOAA would be fired if the situation was not fixed, according to the three individuals, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the episode. Unlike career government employees, political staff are appointed by the administration. They usually include a handful of top officials, such as Dr. Jacobs, and their aides. ...
That threat led to an unusual, unsigned statement later that Friday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disavowing the office’s own position that Alabama was not at risk. The reversal caused widespread anger within the agency and drew criticism from the scientific community that NOAA, a division of the Commerce Department, had been bent to political purposes."
I keep up enough to know that the DNC and the MSM can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything. That goes for the horde of DNC followers here on C-D.
I don't need to weigh the arguments of those with no credibility.
Look at what Trump did to that map. Figure it out for yourself.
I keep up enough to know that the DNC and the MSM can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything. That goes for the horde of DNC followers here on C-D.
I don't need to weigh the arguments of those with no credibility.
Your choice and your opinion. Why did Ross threaten to fire NOAA officials who didn't kowtow to Trump? Sad state of affairs these days.
I wish Trump AND the media would both just SHUT UP about it and now Senile Wilbur steps in to fire some people for doing their job.
Because they dared to offend our delicate flower, President Snowflake.
This is what happens when you have a massively unstable personality with far too much power, and literally millions of people willing to do anything in their power to never allow him to be accountable for anything.
At one point Trump was shown a chart that had the southeast corner of Alabama having something like a 10% chance of getting tropical storm force winds. That was several days before the tweets.
At the time of the NWS Birmingham tweet, the latest models did not have any chance of an Alabama impact.
The scientists were right, the unhinged maniac was wrong. End of story.
You are totally incorrect.
At the time Trump spoke, the charts you reference, i.e maps were still in effect.
At the time Trump spoke, the charts you reference, i.e maps were still in effect.
They were in effect until 9/2.
Please explain how you reconcile that?
For the 1,959,673rd time, what you're talking about was never an official forecast. It was a probability map for tropical-storm force winds, and even it wasn't showing more than a 20% chance for a small portion of the state, and only very briefly. At NO TIME was Alabama EVER actually forecast to experience effects from Dorian. What is so hard to understand about this? You do know the difference between a forecast track map and a probability map, right?
In any case, we're well beyond all this. If Trump wasn't wrong, why did Ross have to threaten NOAA to get them to send out the anonymous tweet backing him?
Not the issue. By focusing on it, Trump is pulling a sleight of hand. The question is whether or not Alabama was going to be "hit" by the hurricane on the Sunday of the tweets - September 1, not days earlier when a spaghetti strand from one of the multiple models showed Alabama to be a possible target. No point in warning folks about a hurricane that was then already taking a different path.
Looks like he made several tweets that Sunday. From them, it appears he was simply confused. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sounds like you join Trump in wanting to take the NWS to task for correcting him. True that their correction tweet was a tad brusk in tone. My only comment is that Trump undermines himself. It doesn't surprise me there's not much respect for him or his professed abilities in some quarters. That could well include a scientific community like the NWS.
As for wind probabilities ... they are simply part of the weather and always forecasted. Right now we've got wind speeds of 6 km/h outside my back door. If it's above 39 mph then that counts as tropical force.
I'm not sure what difference it makes who briefed Trump - as long as they had a good relationship with him. The key is how to talk or present material so Trump will listen then understand.
As to the bolded, that's a little disingenuous on your part. My criticism of NWS is not Trumps. I haven't seen Trump say anything criticizing NWS. It would not surprise me if at some point he comes out and praises them for doing a great job......which normally/mostly they do.
We already discussed this though as I recall in that they could have been more circumspect when contradicting a President. And, again like I said, I have serious doubts they were even the authority with jurisdiction to correct the President on the ONLY part of AL that was at risk of any possible impact. I think that lay with Tallahassee NWS.
As to who briefed Trump, I am going to guess the Coast Guard Admiral just like you and I although probably well versed in hurricane issues doesn't think in the SOP of the NWS...…….i.e. when or when they do not include a specific percentage of probability of tropical storm force winds in a forecast telling people to prepare. Its a nuance. He simply may not have briefed Trump with the same nuance a meteorologist would have.
As to the bolded, that's a little disingenuous on your part. My criticism of NWS is not Trumps. I haven't seen Trump say anything criticizing NWS. It would not surprise me if at some point he comes out and praises them for doing a great job......which normally/mostly they do.
We already discussed this though as I recall in that they could have been more circumspect when contradicting a President. And, again like I said, I have serious doubts they were even the authority with jurisdiction to correct the President on the ONLY part of AL that was at risk of any possible impact. I think that lay with Tallahassee NWS.
As to who briefed Trump, I am going to guess the Coast Guard Admiral just like you and I although probably well versed in hurricane issues doesn't think in the SOP of the NWS...…….i.e. when or when they do not include a specific percentage of probability of tropical storm force winds in a forecast telling people to prepare. Its a nuance. He simply may not have briefed Trump with the same nuance a meteorologist would have.
Keep reading the thread. You're not yet caught up. You'll reach the NYT article reporting that Wilbur (Commerce) threatened to fire Jacobs (NOAA) if Jacobs did not criticize NWS. That counts.
This is a bit much. Some of Trump's messing around is just plain sad, like the Inauguration crowd size. No doubt there are other situations - important ones that the public cannot be made aware of because they involve national security etc. This, though - is a hurricane. Important but at the same time the data - like that doctored, confused map - is available for anyone who chooses to take a look at it.
Then to add on threatened firings on top of that if scientists don't back Trump? Per the NYT:
"Mr. Ross, the commerce secretary, intervened two days later, early last Friday, according to the three people familiar with his actions. Mr. Ross phoned Neil Jacobs, the acting administrator of NOAA, from Greece where the secretary was traveling for meetings and instructed Dr. Jacobs to fix the agency’s perceived contradiction of the president.
Dr. Jacobs objected to the demand and was told that the political staff at NOAA would be fired if the situation was not fixed, according to the three individuals, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the episode. Unlike career government employees, political staff are appointed by the administration. They usually include a handful of top officials, such as Dr. Jacobs, and their aides. ...
That threat led to an unusual, unsigned statement later that Friday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disavowing the office’s own position that Alabama was not at risk. The reversal caused widespread anger within the agency and drew criticism from the scientific community that NOAA, a division of the Commerce Department, had been bent to political purposes."
Seriously, you are relying on anonymous statement allegedly from political appointees?
Please...……...if what they have to say is true, they need to resign. Unless they are willing to make these statement while resigning, I don't accept them.
NOAH knows better than make a liar of the dictator. Funny and pathetic how those in charge bowed to Trump. I’m sure it infuriated many at NOAH. What kind of a country are we living in? Someone needs to do something. This has to be an impeachable offense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
